There’s something silly about the furious debate in Washington over Susan Rice and her suitability to become Secretary of State. Republicans are obsessed with the way Rice publicly parroted CIA talking points about Benghazi when she toured the Sunday talk shows a few days after the deadly terrorist attack there. But they don’t have much to say otherwise about her qualifications for the job.

On second thought, maybe that’s fitting. After all, the job of Secretary of State isn’t what it used to be. Indeed, Rice’s dutiful on-message performance might actually be evidence for why she’d be good at it.

For decades, the Secretary of State tended to be as much a policy mastermind as a foreign diplomat. A string of Cold War Secretaries of State were visionary figures with huge policymaking influence. George Marshall oversaw the post–World War II reconstruction of Europe. Dean Acheson convinced Harry Truman to go to war in Korea. John Foster Dulles propounded the theory of brinksmanship with the Soviets. Henry Kissinger speaks for himself.

Since the Cold War’s end, the corner office at Foggy Bottom has been a much less consequential place. There have been some big moments: James Baker assembled the 1991 Gulf War’s international coalition. Warren Christopher (thanks to Richard Holbrooke) oversaw the hard-won 1995 Dayton accord that ended the Bosnian war. But with the simple and clarifying threat of the Soviets gone, Foggy Bottom grand strategy has been edged out by crisis management and muddling through an increasingly complex and unruly world.

Consider the job’s past few occupants. Madeleine Albright did a fine job in Bill Clinton’s second term but had no signature achievement. Ditto for George W. Bush’s two Secretaries: Colin Powell was marginalized by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and is best remembered for peddling flawed Iraq WMD intelligence to the United Nations. (Powell protests that he was just passing on talking points supplied by the intelligence community. Sound familiar?) Condoleezza Rice peddled Bush’s democracy agenda with mixed results and made a failed effort to jump-start the Middle East peace process.

Hillary Clinton generally wins glowing reviews for her tenure. But she has left light fingerprints on the U.S.’s post-Bush foreign policy. She initially outsourced Middle East peace and Afghanistan-Pakistan policy to George Mitchell and Holbrooke, respectively; both struck out. The Russia “reset” that she kicked off with much fanfare soon fizzled. President Obama has taken the lead on the U.S.’s public response to the Arab Spring. Clinton has scored no surprise diplomatic breakthroughs.

Yes, she was crucial to building the international coalition behind NATO’s Libya intervention. She has worked hard to unify the Syrian opposition. She has personally defended the U.S. against Pakistani hostility. And she has spent long hours in obscure places advancing the U.S.’s strategic pivot to Asia.

But Clinton’s tenure underscores the institutional limits of her job in the modern era. One limit is the growing role of the White House, with its expanded national security apparatus, in the making of foreign policy. The West Wing drives U.S. policy toward Iran and Israel. Clinton’s Syria diplomacy can only achieve so much as long as Obama resists a U.S. entanglement there. And the military and the CIA, meanwhile, take the lead in hot spots like Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan. (The last U.S. ambassador to Islamabad recently left in frustration, allegedly after complaining about the primacy of drone strikes over diplomacy.) And on one recent trip to China, Clinton spotlighted geopolitical reality by bringing along Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who may be at least as influential in Beijing.

Clinton has many admirers who insist she has been a historically significant Secretary but that her achievements may be hard to measure in conventional ways. “I think Secretary Clinton has been a truly visionary Secretary of State,” Anne-Marie Slaughter, who was a senior deputy at Clinton’s State Department until early 2011, told me in November. “It’s a vision that is much more about development, much more about reaching out to people — all the social-media stuff. She has innovated across that board in ways that are not always visible to people.”

Promoting American values and ideas around the world is no small priority, and Clinton deserves credit for that (even if she has occasionally trimmed her sails on human rights). She has also done heroic work advancing the welfare of women internationally. But this more subtle approach underscores the new limits of the State Department and the way Foggy Bottom shapes U.S. foreign policy mainly at the margins. The days of the policy visionary are long gone. Apart from providing counsel at the Cabinet table, there’s little room for independent thought or action. The modern Secretary of State’s mission is to be a high-profile envoy and spokesperson — a vessel for, well, American talking points. And in that sense, even Susan Rice’s critics have to admit that she’s qualified.

When Romney put the male Palin in place I decided to grit my teeth and vote for the already proven failure. So I'm not interested in the party politics of many who have comments. But I'd like to point out that this article's rather sad defense of the current SOS is not backed by the facts. She was put in place for purely Democratic party political reasons. She has her one-string fiddle approach to the position: women's rights. In other words, a very American hot-ticket item. As a sub-subject, gay rights which serves her own leanings and is another trendy American subject. She spent much of her time on photo ops as though running for '16 was already here.

In terms of foreign policy which is supposed to be the SOS fief, she actively promoted, behind and in front of the scene, the whole Arab Spring that our CIA started rolling (entirely behind the scene.) Like the CIA/NSA deciders, she seemed to have little or no idea of what the outcome might be, namely a big step forward for fundamentalist Islamic forces and our vilification in the Moslem world.

As for the rest of it, Anne-Marie Slaughter got it right. What she accomplished is "social-media stuff" and " not visible to peple". Think about that. As one of the women on the inside until a year ago, Slaughter should know.

As for Rice, since Albright stuffed the idea of our top diplomat being diplomatic down the drain, we have had a series of undiplomats. Rice, by everyone's standards, is abrasive, rude, not one to convince dissenters that the American position is valid. She has not accomplished one advance in our interests in the world body of the UN. True, she cannot tell her boss to muck off, but if she has any input in our foreign policy so far, there's no evidence of it. If she is just a tool to blindly carry out Obama's wishes, then she's also failed at that.

The whole Benghazi thing has been blown into nonsense for partisan Republican purposes. They should forget it. Rice messed up by knowing the truth and not having the courage of her position to defend it. She is, after all, Ambassador, not some little flunky. If she is just a little flunky then she shouldn't be SOS. Regardless of her sex, education,or color, there's nothing to indicate she would be the best SOS at Obama's disposition. To those who may not know it, The sole responsible department for the safety and protection of embassies and embassy personnel overseas is the Department of State's Security Dept. State has finished building 34 new bunker embassies and has 56 under construction such as the just-awarded $100M+ one in Swaziland. I don't even know if those are in the State's $56B budget. So where was the Benghazi protection? That's why Clinton shoved Rice onstage that Sunday.

In reality, the position of being our top diplomat has become a place to park aggressive minority people. It's as though our recent administrations have little or no interest in foreign policy - or worse, no understanding of it beyond "out there" being a good place to evangelize our pet social-media projects. And if that's all our country has come to be about, the profound trouble we are in becomes not only understandable, but justifiable.

I think this post needs to be more than just spokesperson. The President acutally needs someone who knows what is acutally going on, understands why, and can discuss ideas and possible solutions. It is obvious that just having a spokesperson in this role has lead to misunderstanding, more violence and rage thoughout the Middle East. Then there is China, and Iran. It is time to be more engaged not less, and to have a Secretary of State that acutally has a long history in foreign policy, has the education and experience and the diplomatic skills necessary to actually accomplish great things overseas for our President. Senator Kerry should be offered this post in my opinion. If not, we are going to witness more of the same in our foreign policy for the next four years-which is a shame, because we now have an opportunity to move forward and make new allies.

"IF" we are to consider the post of US Secretary-of-State as a functional mouthpiece for US Foreign Policy, then I withdraw my objection to Amb. Rice as 'unqualified' for the post.

"However", ...there are Constitutional responsibilities that also 'should' be considered. Of these are;

(1) 4th in the line of Succession - Oh well! Who envisions such a case that was 'provided for', but of 'little probability'.

2) Signatory to Treaties - Certain treaties(XL Pipeline) 'cannot' be ratified with the signature of the Sec-State.

3) "Principle Advisor" to the President - Where does Stanford University get all these CIA-nursed Cold Warrior 'educated' scholars, who 'follow the script(Rice/Rice)" to the letter without independent thought or analysis(Powell).

4) "Wise Counsel" for National Security - ....and this is what has undermined the post Of US Secretary of State. The "national security apparatus/MIC" has run the State Dept for too long. Forcing one Secretary after another to present "untruths" to the world, which has ramifications for present and future US Foreign Policy. Indeed, it becomes a post no better than Saddam Hussein's spokesman; who also simply stated 'untruths' day after day until forcibly dragged from the media spotlight.

5)"Political/Media" Relations - Now that the Congress and the Media both understand the 'limitations' under which Amb. Rice would be confronted with on the Foreign Front, as I do believe most countries would only have 'her' meet with their 'under-secretaries', because if they want to know what she is going to say, they can read it in the paper or catch it on Youtube. "Credibility is everything in diplomacy", ...and without it, the person in front of you may as well be a puppet with a 'singing telegram'.

Other than that, and in all recognition that "Ignorance is Popular", I accept this articles 'premise' that Amb. Rice has the necessary skills to be the next US Secretary of State.

Outsider posted an article that made the case for Jon Huntsman as Secretary of State and I'd like to repeat my support for that, particularly with the attention that Asia will be needing over the next decade.

Guess what - under all Presidents there's like one boss and the rest are hirelings. Some presidents are stronger, others are not. But to make the claim that the hirelings have some kind of policy or departmental freedom to do what they want is idiotic on its foot.

McFarland also said that Ailes — who had a decades-long career as a Republican political consultant, advising Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — might resign as head of Fox to run a Petraeus presidential campaign. At one point, McFarland and Petraeus spoke about the possibility that Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp., which owns Fox News, would “bankroll” the campaign.

None of what you describe is a "Constitutional responsibility" of the Sec of State. There is no mention of a presidential cabinet in the Constitution, let alone a secretary of state. The line of succession beyond the Vice President is statutory, as is anything having to do with signatures on treaties (which I believe is a ministerial function that the SOS cannot refuse to perform). The rest is not even statutory.

1. Al Gore. I first heard this suggestion from my friend David Greenberg, the historian who writes for Slate, and I though, nahhh. But it grew on me pretty fast. Tell me why not. He’d be great. He’s known around the world. He’s respected around the world, about 90 percent of which surely wishes he’d been the president instead of the guy he beat. I’m not saying he’d change the world; no one can do that. But he’d get a hearing everywhere. He knows a huge number of world leaders, and he knows the issues cold. He could dive right into the pool’s deepest end, in the Middle East, on Iran, you name it.

What about his climate-change crusade, you wonder? Far from having to drop his signature issue, Gore could use his new position to push it with even greater vigor in a global context. Gore, and probably Gore alone, would be capable of elevating the climate change issue to the position it deserves on the national and global stage.

What we don’t know that much about is the Gore-Obama relationship. In 2007 and 2008, Gore clearly tilted toward Obama (Gore’s mere refusal to endorse Hillary Clinton over Obama indicated as much). Gore didn’t endorse Obama until right after he’d secured the nomination, but the two were said to have talked regularly. That’s good enough.

Finally: Man, would I love to see the Republicans try to swat down a Gore nomination. How? They’d poke around in his finances, remind America that he’s now divorced. But unless there were some kind of smoking gun on the former point, no one would care. They could not really block Gore; too much stature, too obviously qualified. Can you imagine? John McCain would grind his teeth, assuming those still are his teeth, down to dust. That would be awesome to watch.

2. Jon Huntsman. A Republican reviled by the wingnuts, Huntsman has already served the anti-Christ in a diplomatic capacity, as his ambassador to China. He seems to have done an acceptable job in that posting, so why not just continue and augment the relationship? He clearly likes Obama pretty well and obviously (between the lines) was cheering for his reelection over a man he clearly dislikes.

It’s hard to see Huntsman having confirmation problems. There would be a number of no votes and a lot of kvetching, but he couldn’t be blocked. He might even do a good job, too. And putting him at State would clear out of Hillary’s way in 2016 the GOP’s leading sane candidate.

@MrObvious@curt3rd &You know how naive that is? Those cabinet officials have gotten more than one president in trouble. Sometimes the prez backs them up, and sometimes they get the boot, but to say that they are not independent or micro-managed from the Oval Office is just silly.

Among other reasons(...like the Clinton's), that's why Obama really does not want John Kerry @ State. Kerry is that person who could be too independent of the president, and Obama would have to consider that Kerry is just as qualified to sit in the Big Chair, just as Hillary is 'qualified' to sit in the Big Chair, ...but Susan Rice??? Nahhh, not qualified to even sit in the cabinet, much less the next biggest chair at the table.

OK, maybe NSA, but even there its a stretch, because there are 'many' very smart, long-serving people in line for that position who would look unkindly upon another California Stanford 'cutie' getting the job. Yet, the prez gets who he wants(sometimes), and the nation muddles along. After all, nobody messes with the guy wiith the biggest gun, unless you truly believe in the Personal Paradise of Death.

@DonQuixotic its not just the right. When I referred to hand wringing over MSNBC that comment was directed specifically at the main stream reporters who have a serious problem with the minor rise of the left at MSNBC as if there was just not enough space for a more liberal point of view in cable news, but have in the past bent over back wards to defend Fox News as a legit news organization even knowing that this is the kind of crap Fox News has been pulling since the 90s. Don't know if you heard the audio (one exists) of McFarland's and Petraeus' conversation. You can actually hear people trying to get themselves out of the room because they know some thing wrong was about to go down. McFarland was pretty brazen about this though out as if what she was passing on was perfectly okay and its also clear from the tape that this was her main purpose for showing up in Afghanistan in the first place and the little interview that she did with the general before hand was just a cover for the real reason she was there. And that was to pass on this message to the general from the head of Fox News.

@bobell Very well, you get the picture, ...and Susan Rice isn't in it.

BTW, ...the rest of your comment can be directed to Gen. Al Haig("I'm in charge!), during which time this very subject was 'bantered around' on Capital Hill and the press.

After all, didn't I say, "what do I know?", ...but your response is quite indicative of the juvenile rhetoric that passes for 'exceptionalism' is this American society.

Please feel free to have 'your' dilletante as 'mouthpiece' for America. Surely you shall have what you deserve, ...which is probably more of the 'same' (Rice/Rice LOL). B-b-but since you have all the Blood & Treasure for your 'ignorance', why not?

@roknsteve Nope, ...that's why at the first sign of trouble all the pilots fly away!

...and you have 3 'carrier groups' in the Persian Gulf. The only other time such an armada has occupied such a 'small area' was WW-II. As a navy vet, believe me, its crowded, ...and ships have been known to go bump in the night.

Faster, sexier, deadlier doesn't come cheap. Yet, we should do -more-, because them Chinese have just managed to land on a 'aircraft carrier'(sic). Without that enormous US weapons budget they'll be landing in Hawaii.

How many carriers did the Japanese use to attack Pearl Harbor(trivia)? ...and now we should be afraid of one Chinese carrier that boast the only Chinese pilot to land on an aircraft carrier - 70 years later!(...probably needing something for the load in his pants :-D OOOOO,....scary, better order some more US carriers right away.

@DonQuixotic@lloydcata@bobell I'll tell you how it's possible...all the new toys that Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc want to sell to the DoD for some perceived threat cost alot more than the toys we already have that already address that threat. My favorite is the new Joint Strike Fighter, which is a freaking money pit, and doesn't do much of anything much better than an F-15, but it keeps people working at a few plants. Considering that our old weapons are much better than even the best weapons that our potential adversaries have, why we need to spend a ton for new ones is beyond me (yet we do anyway).

Then you might want to put them around words that I imagine would be more useful in a search like the subject matter at hand, like Ambassador Rice or Guantanamo, as opposed to seemingly random words like 'recall', 'appears', and 'trivial'.

@MrObvious@bobell They are called 'breadcrumbs' for your information, and they are a 'tool', kinda like Amb. Rice, that I use for blogging diaries. there may be some marketable aspect to the 'program', but it is in the test phase.

Would you like to be able to 'recall' everything you blogged? What a surprise! Shortcuts/'breadcrumbs' are a Twitter affectation that has 'potential' for building cross-network profiles.

...and what is the 'international legal status' for such an "arrangement"? Given that Cubans arriving on US shores are given -automatic- citizenship(except for the Marialitos), there 'appears' to be some obscure connection.

Now I don't want to spread false conspiracy rumors, but in trying to 'connect-the-dots'; I, and the rest of the world, seem to have missed something called "sovereignty". Another 'trivial' matter best left for those with bigger guns, and more money than brains.

The lease on the Guantanamo Naval Base, dating from 1903, is "perpetual." Cuba has contested the validity of the lease and long ago cut off all utility service to the base but has failed to dislodge it. (The base generates all its electricity, including about 25 percent from wind. Its water comes from a desalination plant.)

Short answer: Cuba gets the base back when the U.S. decides it's time.

See, that little trivial lie about 'yellowcake' led to further trivia about how many minutes it takes for an Iraqi 'ballistic/bull$hit' missile to reach the US. Which led to further trivia about WMD. Which led to 5000+ KIA's and $2T.

Now I've played Trivial Pursuit, although never for that kinda money, but surely you see how 'trivial' things add up, ....and the next thing you know its "Shock & Awe II" with a big fat target on Iran.

But with a wind down that won't cause thousands to be laid off everywhere. I'd love to cut our defense spending to a third of what it is and what it was before 2000, but we can't do that without shanking our economy. Sadly.

Surely, that little spat over money(fiscal cliff) has nothing to do with Foreign Policy. Its just that 95% of the world is looking at the dysfunction with wary eyes, ...and what can Amb. Rice tell them? Ooops, I didn't think to ask Hillary, but can see she's busy, so ....

Oh, if you should happen to speak to the "esteemed Harvard-educated Constitutional Scholar" in the White House, please ask him how it is possible to stop two(2) wars and not call for 'meaningful cuts' in defense? I'm sure he has his 'talking points' prepared.

@DonQuixotic@lloydcata@bobell Sorry, it was Truman's OSS that tried to strong-arm Eisenhower. But they 'took over' the State Dept. which is so very important to 'intelligence gathering' and propaganda.

B-b-but to get back to the 'premise' of the article, ....it doesn't matter who the 'mouthpiece' is, the 'message' is still the same: http://goo.gl/22xFS

Ergo; There is no way the US is interested in 'uplifting Humanity'. N'est pas?

I do think we should thank him for "bantered around," which I'd never before seen in the wild (and whose meaning could never be inferred from the meanings of its constituent words). A check of Google establishes that it's actually a meaningful phrase, more or less a synonym for the older "bandied about."

'You' 'don't' 'need' 'to' 'keep' 'emphasizing' 'words' 'like' 'this'. Use italics or something. I still don't see any connection to foreign policy under Susan Rice to foreign policy under Condoleeza Rice. Maybe you could elaborate without the conspiracy theories?

Skull & Crossbones it is not, but please don't tell mme that these wanna-be Greeks are the best America can do. Foreign Policy practices since Eisenhower have been run by his same OSS crowd for generations. He knew it, and he warned against it. Now Susan Rice appears as the latest champion of such "progressive thinking" that 'she' thinks AFRICOM is a perfectly legitimate 'tool' of US Foreign Policy.

Please, get over your exceptionalism and 'try' to see where this international gangsterism is leading America, ...and don't expect the Truth from the likes of people like Susan Rice.

I don't know 'why' you feel the need to keep putting 'emphasis' on random 'words' throughout your post, but it is silly that you think Susan Rice and Condoleeza Rice are even remotely the same beyond their names. Bobell is right, there is no mention of the Secretary of State in the Constitution. Your bringing it up seems to be just for bravado.